[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201202170823.GF2951@zn.tnic>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 18:08:23 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
luto@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Deep Shah <sdeep@...are.com>,
"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/12] x86/xen: drop USERGS_SYSRET64 paravirt call
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 03:48:21PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> I wanted to avoid the additional NOPs for the bare metal case.
Yeah, in that case it gets optimized to a single NOP:
[ 0.176692] SMP alternatives: ffffffff81a00068: [0:5) optimized NOPs: 0f 1f 44 00 00
which is nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1) and I don't think that's noticeable on
modern CPUs where a NOP is basically a rIP increment only and that goes
down the pipe almost for free. :-)
> If you don't mind them I can do as you are suggesting.
Yes pls, I think asm readability is more important than a 5-byte NOP.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists